When it comes to managing the National Park System, the example before us is clearly not the right way. In this case, we're referring to Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and de facto National Park Service Director P. Dan Smith on, most recently, the topic of eBikes in the parks.
Bernhardt seems to treat the parks as his fiefdom to manage to the benefit of his industry friends. For Smith, well, he follows the secretary's lead.
Evidence of that arose at the end of 2018, when the partial government shutdown arrived. While the National Park System was closed during past government shutdowns, Bernhardt wanted it kept open, and Smith agreed. They even agreed, after piles of garbage arose and restrooms turned disgusting, to divert Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act dollars to pay for custodial staff.
We know, of course, that keeping the parks open wasn't the best decision. One of Joshua Tree National Park's iconic trees was cut down, a backcountry traveler in Big Bend National Park broke his leg and was extremely fortunate to encounter an off-duty ranger, who carried him on his back for two miles, and off-roaders went where they shouldn't in Death Valley National Park. How many other issues arose during the partial shutdown is hard to know, as Interior is dragging its feet on responding to Freedom of Information Act requests.
That the Interior secretary would open the gates to allow eBikes to motor down park trails where traditional bicycles can roll shouldn't be surprising. Back in November 2018, during a meeting of the “Made in America” Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee, one committee member, Phil Morlock, a vice president at Shimano North America Holdings, pointed out that Interior policy at the time banned eBikes from some areas of public lands because they were considered to be motorized vehicles.
"He suggested that this specific case be used as an example to review existing DOI policy issues which prevent outdoor recreationists from using new technology on public lands," draft minutes from the meeting noted.
While it isn't surprising that Bernhardt issued a secretarial order last week to allow greater eBike access (will privately owned drones get clearance next?), how he did, and how Smith responded in a press release for the public and a directive to his superintendents, are examples of how not to manage the parks. Or any business.
There had been an agreement to issue the policy this coming Thursday, but Bernhardt surprised more than a few folks, including some in the National Park Service, by releasing it last Thursday evening. In his secretarial order, Bernhardt said that within two weeks from last Thursday all three classes of eBikes must be exempted from being considered motorized vehicles within the park system.
Within 30 days, Bernhardt went on, he wanted to see summaries of any policy changes needed to increase eBike access to the parks, of any laws or regulations that stand in the way of such access, and a timeline for seeking public comment on changing any regulations to allow greater eBike access. At that time, as well, he wanted the National Park Service to provide visitors with guidance on where they could ride their eBikes.
In other words, first grant eBike access to park visitors and then explain how to make it neat and legal. Even though, Bernhardt should have engaged the public, the various trail groups, communities around parks, and other park users before he released the policy. Oh, and maybe evaluated potential visitor conflicts, impacts to wildlife and cultural resources, cost of enforcement—but that would have made his decision informed rather than seemingly haphazard.
As for Smith, he sent out a press release Friday stating that the Park Service has "a new electric bicycle policy for national parks..." Nevermind that under 36 CFR Section 1.5 the Park Service needs to go through rulemaking steps before it can adopt such a policy.
But there's more that's baffling when you read Smith's press release and his directive to superintendents. For instance:
* "The operator of an e-bike may only use the motor to assist pedal propulsion," stated Smith's release. "The motor may not be used to propel an e-bike without the rider also pedaling, except in locations open to public motor vehicle traffic."
So, how many park rangers will be needed to monitor whether eBikers are pedaling or not?
* "Park superintendents will retain the right to limit, restrict, or impose conditions of bicycle use and e-bike use in order to ensure visitor safety and resource protection," the release added. "Over the coming month, superintendents will work with their local communities, staff, and partners to determine best practices and guidance for e-bike use in their parks."
So, on one hand Bernhardt is calling for more eBike access, as is Smith ... unless superintendents disagree. And while Bernhardt is calling for 30 days to pass before a public comment period is scheduled, Smith expects superintendents to get that done over the next 30 days. A tight schedule to say the least, if all the steps are followed.
But Smith is making it easy for superintendents to get by without much, if any, public comment. In a memorandum sent to them Friday the acting NPS director said superintendents "must" add language to their compendia (the on-the-ground rulebook used in individual parks for managing uses) to allow eBikes where "traditional bikes are allowed," and he even provided a fill-in-the-blank form for getting the job done.
Furthermore, Smith directed superintendents to adopt existing state laws pertaining to eBikes where their park is found. They also must comply with 36 CFR Section 1.7, which pertains to public notice, he added (if only, perhaps, to say he wanted public comment). He also told them to adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act, though Smith also pointed out that to meet Bernhardt's directive superintendents will resort to making a "categorial exclusion" that shortcuts the process.
What will be interesting to see is whether those parks that have blocked eBike use on trails now will be forced to do a 180.
You can argue whether eBikes have a place on hiking trails in the parks, but if you want to go through the rulemaking channels established under the Code of Federal Regulations and be circumspect with your decision-making, the approach Bernhardt and Smith took is not the handbook to follow.
The end result is not only a poor, disjointed example of how to manage "America's best idea," but it does a disservice to all recreational users of the parks, including eBikers. Instead of having a well-thought-out policy for recreation, this just muddies the waters, poses a threat to resources and other park users, and could end up in court.
Comments
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2019/09/review-shows-national-park-services-bicycle-regulations-and-ebike-hurdles-access
What your refer to I believe is the regulation. meaning that under federal law they are not required to be registered as a vehicle and can go where ohter consumer products can. Please see this article but I can give you a hundred more that state the same thing.
https://electricbikereview.com/forum/threads/electric-bike-laws-in-the-u...,'bicycle'%20for%20consumer%20purposes.
Please see point number 2.
I believe what you are refering to is it. Try this, but I can give you a million others that say the same thing
https://electricbikereview.com/forum/threads/electric-bike-laws-in-the-u...,'bicycle'%20for%20consumer%20purposes.
notice the bold sections below.
State and Local Laws dictate your use, but cannot constitutionally supersede the federal law - Any ebike purchased within the 750W/20mph limits has no fear of being under federal motor vehicle classification, nor can any state classify them a motor vehicle. The ebike is considered a 'bicycle' for consumer purposes. However, the State Laws on local bike paths and local thruways may prohibit or limit ebike access. When bike path signs use word such as 'motor vehicles' and 'motorbikes' , the laws are likely referring to gas-ICE motorbikes/dirt bikes/scooters, and not ebikes. Other references to 'motorized bicycles' or 'motorized vehicles' sound more inclusive and probably are intended for either ebikes or gas mopeds. If in doubt, you always have the option to pedal unassisted by completely powering your bike down. Even though Federal law grant ebikes a bicycle status, the common consensus found in my research allows local and state law to add additional regulation to pathway and road access, just because "it has a motor". So the Federal laws protects the consumer from the burden of motor vehicle requirements, but not the restrictions to local and state right of ways enjoyed by all non-motored bicycles.
Your local state may have very definite rules as to what is an e-bike, what is a moped, and what is a motorcycle. While ebikes enthusiast don't want the motor vehicle label, it is certain that each state will define some power level and speed where that classification will apply. Your best source of information is to go directly to your state motor vehicle department website, and get a copy of the your local state vehicle codes, with NO EDITING. Only recently updated official state vehicle codes will contain all the latest changes to the laws.1 For a link to your state MVA, look here:2 http://eco-wheelz.com/electric-bike-laws.php
Can I legally buy/build and ride an ebike that's faster than 20 mph? Yes you can, but you need to know that the ebike is no longer considered equivalent to a bicycle and is subject to other state vehicular classifications. The definitions for electric bikes spanning 20-30mph, and 1-2 horsepower ranges, will vary from state to state, resulting in a no-man's-land consensus about limits for motor vehicle definition. The common label for a 20-30mph, 2-wheeled vehicle with active pedals is a Moped. Other MVA labels include motor scooter, motorbike and dirt bike which may have equivalent power and speed performance, but do not have pedals to assist and move the vehicle.
You can also try this, its a site quoted by Kurt quite often. It also fairly commonly known by everyone in the industry - 750 watts 20 mph
https://peopleforbikes.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/E-Bike-Law-Primer-...
Especially this section and notce the bold
Federal Law Governing Low-Speed Electric Bicycles: Electric-assisted bicycles have been defined and regulated at the federal level since 2002. Public Law 107-319 established that electric bicycles are regulated as consumer products under the Consumer Product Safety Act, and more specifically, subject to the same regulations that govern traditional, human-powered bicycles. Thus, electric bicycles are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and must comply with the bicycle safety standards at 16 C.F.R. Part 1512. In addition, electric bicycles are explicitly not "motor vehicles" for the purposes of federal law, and are not subject to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration vehicle standards. As a practical matter, Public Law 107-319 ensures that electric bicycles are designed, manufactured, and tested like traditional bicycles for the purposes of consumer product safety law. The main provisions of Public Law 107-319 are codified at 15 U.S.C. SS 2085.
BTW does this finally answer your stupid MOTOR argument Rumple?
I'm simply asking where in the U.S.C. or C.F.R. does it suggest the following:
The law/regulation that mentions these is pretty simple. The result is that product safety matters are the purview of the CPSC and not the Dept of Transportation. Nowhere does it say or even suggest that federal agencies must allow them where non-assisted bicycles are allowed. It doesn't even mean they're specifically equivalent to bicycles. It means that one doesn't need a driver license to operate one. It means they don't have to be registered with a state dept of motor vehicles. I means they're regulated for safety similar to how a toy wagon or a toy car would be. However, I find your claim to be sorely lacking in facts on how any law or regulation requires federal agencies to allow them where regular bicycles are allowed.
Look, I can only give you the facts. I can't make you reasonable.... Go to Google and type in Federal law for ebikes and tell me what the first 100 sites tell you...
Everyone knows that in the us it's 750 watts and 20mph and in Europe it's 250 watts and 15.5 mph to not be considered a motor vehicle and be allowed where bikes travel
Links and quotes are allowed in the comments here. If you have them, then have a go at it. I can't find anything that says anything about federal agencies being required to allow Class 1 e-bikes where non-assisted bicycles are allowed. You made the claim, so I'm asking you politely to back it up. It sounds to me like you would like it to be true, but it simply isn't.
Now I did find this from the National Conference of State Legislatures. I bolded the part that makes it clear that such federal law only refers to product and safety standards.
And this is from a proponent of e-bikes (which was referenced in the NCSL article):
Are you saying thateven though it's vague the regulations we have don't allow bikes , rollerblades ebikes etc to share the same sidewalks? Are you saying that the rule implies that hoverboards ebikes and larks can't use bike sidewalks and have to use roadways? People on here are asking ebikes riders to have a reasonable discussion about these laws, would you say you are being reasonable about what these regulations mean? I can tell you that all of the police in az read it the same way as me. Unfortunately we passed an ebikes bill to handle these regulations but the governor vetoed it. Too bad there wouldn't be an argument but it would say the exact same thing. Just like California they are equal to bikes and can share the same paths depending on class. Essentially as anyone can see if you look at speed. Ebikes equate to bikes a thousand times between than motorized vehicles.
Let me summarize it for you although I know you won't believe your own quote
Ebikes are not motorcycles or mopeds or vehicles and are held to the same requirements as bikes.
I am all for regulations and better rules because as you will see they will say the exact same thing
Your other quote is merely making the defense that class 3 ebikes fall under the same guidelines
im not sure what to say, pretty much everyone including lawyers in my state realize that the state has the right to regulate ebikes, but without those rule which is common in most states they fall under the Federal regulations and those feel pretty obvious to every reasonable person. Sorry I just don't understand your point or even if you have one except to try to poke holes in my words